Board Bulletin No. 1
June 23, 2011

 

The following policy matters were discussed and adopted in the June 14, 2011 Board meeting:

A. On the policy on promotion in CES Rank, the Board decided to maintain the status quo since there are sufficient safeguards currently in place like the following:

1. Residency requirement of at least three (3) years in the CES rank the CESO incumbent is presently holding.

2. CESPES rating of at least “Very Satisfactory” for every year of residency in the CES rank, subject to the qualifications provided under Section 3(b), Article II, CESB Resolution No. 798.

3. Attendance in the trainings prescribed in the next higher CES rank in accordance with Section 4(c), Article I, CESB Resolution No. 798.

4. The listing or ranking of CES rank to which a CESO may be promoted to is very limited.

It is reiterated that the policy on promotion in CES rank is a reward system that recognizes the outstanding accomplishments and performance of CESOs who may not be appointed to the limited number of Assistant Secretary or Undersecretary positions. Hence, it is more advisable to maintain the current policy on promotion in CES rank since it is more in keeping with the concept of merit and fitness enshrined in the Constitution.

B. On the policy on the coverage of the CES, the Board introduced guidelines in relation to the conduct of position classification study of CES positions with the advent of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of PCSO v. CSC, G.R. No. 185766 and G.R. No. 185767 which limited the coverage of positions belonging to the CES to positions requiring Presidential appointment. CESB Resolution No. 945, 14 June 2011 states, among others:

1. For career service positions requiring Presidential appointment expressly enumerated under Section 7(3), Chapter 2, Subtitle A, Title 1, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 namely: Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director, Assistant Regional Director, and Chief of Department Service, no classification of position is necessary to place them under the coverage of the CES, except if they belong to Project Offices, in which case a position classification is required, in consultation with the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

2. For positions requiring Presidential appointments other than those enumerated above, a classification of positions is necessary which shall be conducted by the Board, upon request of the head of office of the government department/agency concerned, to place them under the coverage of the CES provided they comply with the following criteria:

i. The position is a career position;

ii. The position is above division chief level; and,

iii. The duties and responsibilities of the position require the performance of executive and managerial functions.

All appointments to positions which have not been previously classified as part of the CES would be deemed co-terminus with the appointing authority.

C. The policy on recommendation for original and promotional appointment to Career Executive Service (CES) ranks of officials with pending cases was revisited and the Board adopted a revised policy on the matter taking into consideration the definition of moral turpitude introduced by the Supreme Court in the case of Villaber vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148326 dated November 15, 2001, as “an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals”. CESB Resolution No. 946, 14 June 2011 states:

RULE I

With Respect to Cases Pending with the Office of the Ombudsman

Section 1. The Board shall, after an exhaustive evaluation, recommend a CESO or a CES Eligible for appointment to a CES rank even if he/she has pending cases, under the following circumstances:

1. If the cases filed do not involve moral turpitude; and

2. Even if the cases filed involve moral turpitude, if the Board has reasonable grounds to believe that the cases are purely harassment cases or constitute malicious prosecution and the acts complained of arose from the performance of official functions.

Section 2. In case of dismissal and/or exoneration from the charges filed, the official concerned shall furnish the Board a copy of the Decision/Order of Dismissal together with a Certification that he/she has no pending criminal or administrative case.

 

RULE II
With Respect to Cases Pending with the Regular Courts or Quasi-Judicial Bodies

Section 1. The Board shall, after an exhaustive evaluation, recommend a CESO or a CES Eligible for appointment to a CES rank even if he/she has pending cases, under the following circumstances:

1. If the cases filed do not involve moral turpitude; and

2. Even if the cases filed involve moral turpitude, if the Board has reasonable grounds to believe that the cases are purely harassment cases or constitute malicious prosecution and the acts complained of arose from the performance of official functions.

 

 


 

 

Copyright (C) 2011